Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

In Saito's commentary to "Budo" he correctly notes that O-Sensei used "six-directions" and not "hanmi" or "60 degrees", but he speculates that this is because O-Sensei did not use the term "hanmi" at that time budo was written (for some reason unspecified by Saito).

My personal hunch is that it's one of those things that O-Sensei dropped because nobody understood what he was talking about and he didn't care to explain - for all that he broke with Takeda it seems to me that he was somewhat cagey about stating some things explicitly in clear language. Many times it seems that he expected (or wanted to see) people following the hints he dropped - also a common traditional tactic. "Stealing the techniques", in other words.

Best,

Chris

I want to note that, in reading Saito's Japanese text, it appears to me that he was unaware if there was a reason for the change in nomenclature.

Put it this way - Morihei Ueshiba deplored counting the steps in a jo kata.

Morihiro Saito stated this himself and stated that he would be scolded if found counting out the steps in a jo kata.

Morihiro Saito taught the jo kata while counting out the steps.

Doesn't that mean that Saito was teaching things from outside the system?

:-)

Quote:

If you're saying that the way that the particular way Saito expressed things is the only legitimate expression within the system then I think that you're in for a lot of arguments.

It is the system for me. I don't really know what you practice other that it is different from what I practice. When someone says that the system can be made better by changing this and that, it needs to proved to me.

Quote:

Personally, I think that you're getting too caught up in the exact outer expression of the physical movement - something that both Morihei Ueshiba and Sokaku Takeda specifically spoke against.

I think (and I mentioned this before) that you are cherry picking the evidence to support your conclusions. For example, in the Shirata -Stevens book a photo of the Founder in hanmi is subtitled:

"The founder demonstrating the correct manner of holding a sword.[When a question arose one day about the proper posture, he posed on the spot in his regular clothes]".

I think you need to do better than say that: I am "getting too caught up in the exact outer expression", that Stevens made up things and Shirata and Saito sensei were on friendly terms, before discarding photographic evidence to the contrary.

It is the system for me. I don't really know what you practice other that it is different from what I practice. When someone says that the system can be made better by changing this and that, it needs to proved to me.

What's changed? Takeda said that his art was a principle based art, not locked into specific physical postures - Ueshiba said the same, so did both Yoshiyuki Sagawa and Kenji Yoshida, which shows the same transmission going down two variant lines from Takeda.

If you're saying that it is locked to specific physical postures than it seems to me that it's you who are changing things.

Quote:

David Soroko wrote:

I think (and I mentioned this before) that you are cherry picking the evidence to support your conclusions. For example, in the Shirata -Stevens book a photo of the Founder in hanmi is subtitled:

"The founder demonstrating the correct manner of holding a sword.[When a question arose one day about the proper posture, he posed on the spot in his regular clothes]".

I think you need to do better than say that: I am "getting too caught up in the exact outer expression", that Stevens made up things and Shirata and Saito sensei were on friendly terms, before discarding photographic evidence to the contrary.

As for Stevens making up things - the entire original Japanese text appears in my blog, people are free to decide for themselves. I will note that Saito's commentary matches my translation, not Stevens.

"Right posture" is a tricky term. There are no articles in Japanese - did he mean "a" right posture or "the" right posture. If he meant "the", did he mean "the only", and what was the context of the situation and the discussion? What about the posture is right and what is not right?

If you're looking at a picture and calculating the number of degrees that are between the feet - then that, to me, is the very essence of "external" training.

Well if that posture was important to the Founder, then I think it is worth emulating. If by this I lock myself down, so be it. If you thing that Stevens is fibbing in the text of the photo, so be it. If degrees is calculating and directions is not, well, so be it.

Well if that posture was important to the Founder, then I think it is worth emulating. If by this I lock myself down, so be it. If you thing that Stevens is fibbing in the text of the photo, so be it. If degrees is calculating and directions is not, well, so be it.

I didn't say anything about fibbing (that was in reference to a different passage, but I didn't say "fibbing" there, either), I said that it's impossible to tell from the context exactly what he meant by "correct". If you are of the opinion that mimicking his outer form at all times is the way to go then that's fine, but I differ.

I think (and I mentioned this before) that you are cherry picking the evidence to support your conclusions. For example, in the Shirata -Stevens book a photo of the Founder in hanmi is subtitled:

"The founder demonstrating the correct manner of holding a sword.[When a question arose one day about the proper posture, he posed on the spot in his regular clothes]".

I think you need to do better than say that: I am "getting too caught up in the exact outer expression", that Stevens made up things and Shirata and Saito sensei were on friendly terms, before discarding photographic evidence to the contrary.

The questions I would be asking and trying to figure out based on that photo are more along the lines of:

How is Ueshiba holding himself up? How he is holding the sword up? Where is the weight of the sword being loaded into? Where is his weight and what direction is it committed? Are they in the same or different places as the sword is weighted and committed? Being able to talk directly to him would be helpful to be sure.

Most martial artists would be looking at the angle of the feet, angle of the sword, distance between the feet etc, trying to copy their teacher. If you try and work on the questions I ask up top, the distance between feet, angles etc all sort themselves out on their own. Thus the first listed set of questions defines the position from the "inside out" whereas the second set of questions is from the "outside in". The references made in Christopher Li's article make it pretty clear that Ueshiba is referring to the inside out approach rather than the outside in.

I didn't say anything about fibbing (that was in reference to a different passage, but I didn't say "fibbing" there, either), I said that it's impossible to tell from the context exactly what he meant by "correct". If you are of the opinion that mimicking his outer form at all times is the way to go then that's fine, but I differ.

Indeed. You did say something about people making their own minds in the context of the discussion of the photo. It was Ernesto Lemke and you earlier, who said:

"That would be Shirata per Stevens then. There is no reference that is a direct quote."
"It could be that is what he was told, or what he heard from another source (he was friendly with Saito, for example). "
"...I'm mostly pointing out that it's not a given (in the sense that it's not all that clear) to me that it is Shirata's view that is represented here. For instance, Stevens added a short biography of the Founder to the book which surely contains information that came via Shirata but is as much the product of Stevens' own research (IOW via other sources then Shirata). In other parts of the book Stevens sometimes mentions quite clearly when passages are either a summary of or references to Shirata's point of view. Regarding hanmi I don't find such a reference so it's left open to debate."

It seems that the only reason for you to discard this specific information (other that it doesn't fit with your views) is that it could be Stevens and not Shirata who was saying that - that despite of Shirata posing in hanmi on the same and preceding pages.

I will ignore the "at all times" which I didn't say and will ask you this:

1. If the "outer form" demonstrated by the founder is not important, why insist on not doing it?
2. How you decide when to stop "mimicking his outer form"? Will you have all the --kyo, shihonage, koshinage, kokyunage etc... reworked to their non outer form shape? If so, how will your martial art look like when you are done?
3. In the context of the previous question, how does your Aikido look like now? How would you categorise your linage?

The questions I would be asking and trying to figure out based on that photo are more along the lines of:

How is Ueshiba holding himself up? How he is holding the sword up? Where is the weight of the sword being loaded into? Where is his weight and what direction is it committed? Are they in the same or different places as the sword is weighted and committed? Being able to talk directly to him would be helpful to be sure.

Most martial artists would be looking at the angle of the feet, angle of the sword, distance between the feet etc, trying to copy their teacher. If you try and work on the questions I ask up top, the distance between feet, angles etc all sort themselves out on their own. Thus the first listed set of questions defines the position from the "inside out" whereas the second set of questions is from the "outside in". The references made in Christopher Li's article make it pretty clear that Ueshiba is referring to the inside out approach rather than the outside in.

All this was and is taught in Iwama. Find yourself an Iwama teacher and you will have your questions answered in considerable detail.
Regarding your second point, I belive that you need to learn how to crawl before you can run. Perhaps yours is a different methodology. Can you please tell me you aikido lineage?

All this was and is taught in Iwama. Find yourself an Iwama teacher and you will have your questions answered in considerable detail.
Regarding your second point, I belive that you need to learn how to crawl before you can run. Perhaps yours is a different methodology. Can you please tell me you aikido lineage?

At least Saito senseis interpretation of these facts are taught. Details on these things can vary between Iwama-style teachers as well.

All this was and is taught in Iwama. Find yourself an Iwama teacher and you will have your questions answered in considerable detail.
Regarding your second point, I belive that you need to learn how to crawl before you can run. Perhaps yours is a different methodology. Can you please tell me you aikido lineage?

I studied under Irving Faust, 6th dan (Aikikai as I recall) at Albany Akikai. I no longer claim any affiliation with Faust Sensei as I no longer live in the area. Under his instruction we were taught primarily angles, and blending with the opponent through big circular movement. We did various warm up exercises, which i now get the point of (after experiences outside aikido), but no instruction was provided as to the meaning of them. Practice was essentially copy this shape, not what holds up the shape from the inside.

After 20 years of training in martial arts, and more specifically after exposure to internal concepts via the Aunkai and Mike Sigman, I figured out that you can fundamentally use the body the same way wether you are doing kendo, iaido, judo, aikido, bjj, karate, and kajukenbo (note: I teach and hold licensure in some of these arts) even if the waza are different. The first 12 years of martial arts, I trained externally (the approach I detailed and was taught in my previous post), the last 7 I've been focusing on internally after my "eyes were opened" by Akuzawa sensei. Note: after my eyes were "opened" simply means I learned there was another way, not that I could do the other way. On a side note, you will find plenty of pre-war high level kendo instructors giving hints such that judo and kendo are two sides of the same coin, to indicate that you are training the same sort of thing.

Now when I teach students I don't focus on angles and such, I have them initially focus on weight and where they are sourcing power and where they feel loads.(I also don't officially teach internals either, but we do have a study group).

I will ignore the "at all times" which I didn't say and will ask you this:

1. If the "outer form" demonstrated by the founder is not important, why insist on not doing it?
2. How you decide when to stop "mimicking his outer form"? Will you have all the --kyo, shihonage, koshinage, kokyunage etc... reworked to their non outer form shape? If so, how will your martial art look like when you are done?
3. In the context of the previous question, how does your Aikido look like now? How would you categorise your linage?

1) If one is a beginner and they try and copy the outer form, they won't get to the point where the founder is. There are a number of stages where the outer form changes as their body and mind adapt to a different way of using the body. The body will look and move differently through each stage. Keeping to that ideal form, will not allow the body to go through those stages as the ideal form is the culmination of passing through those stages. Ideally you want to train and see people at different stages of using the body along the way because its hard to see several steps ahead of where you are now.

2) If you are learning the waza, then of course you need to learn the choreography. Setting aside for the moment the idea that aikido is or is not a study of waza or a study of "aiki", you could still work on the shape of the choreography, but use a different "engine" to power it from the begining. One would need to decide though if working on that engine is best done through a set waza shape, or if that should be done in conjunction with building up that engine through solo practice, they trying to maintain it through a choreographed shape.

1. If the "outer form" demonstrated by the founder is not important, why insist on not doing it?
2. How (do) you decide when to stop "mimicking his outer form"? Will you have all the --kyo, shihonage, koshinage, kokyunage etc... reworked to their non outer form shape? If so, how will your martial art look like when you are done?
3. In the context of the previous question, how does your Aikido look like now? How would you categorize your linage?

1. I don't consider outer form of mush importance, and neither did Ueshiba. He stressed that he didn't give it importance *over* aiki. And just to be clear; all of his descriptions of aiki didn't involve form. In fact most of them were not even his-they came from other source material and directly pointed to solo training and what was happening inside of you!!
So, other pertinent questions for you would be:
a. Why do you consider outer form important?
b. Why does anybody?
c. Why do so many of your movements and body skills in the people I continue to meet feel like the average person off the street, and Ueshiba didn't? Could it possibly have to do with what he said he was doing?
d. And why is it that those of us who train using those concepts expressed in his own terminology keep being told we feel different?

2. I stopped a few years in and never went back to form to find aiki. My martial art looks like jujutsu based MMA. Why would Sagawa (a peer of Ueshiba's) basically say what Ueshiba said. "Aiki is about training the body. Only amateurs think you get it from techniques." A good counter question is why did none of the peers of Ueshiba (under Takeda) stress form. Why do you think they disagree so strongly with your ideas?
3. I am told my Aiki...do is pretty good, but hey...according to at least one person here; only idiots and easily swayed people come train with me.

Can I add other questions of my own.
Since Ueshiba, Shirata, Shioda, Mochizuki, Tomiki, and later, teachers like Tohei and Saotoma were also known for not being able to be thrown:
a. How was that good?
b. Why was it good?
c. In what dojo was that happening?
d. Why is it now so very ...good....to fit in and be thrown?
e. What is it exactly we are being trained for and to do compared to those men?
Dan

Indeed. You did say something about people making their own minds in the context of the discussion of the photo.

Sorry, I understood the "cherry picking" to be referring to the "Budo" section on kamae - I never made any comment on the translation under the picture with the sword, except to note that it's impossible to tell what Ueshiba was communicating as "correct". Hunter gave a very good summary of some of the kinds of things that I would be asking him about if he were around to discuss the picture.

Quote:

David Soroko wrote:

1. If the "outer form" demonstrated by the founder is not important, why insist on not doing it?
2. How you decide when to stop "mimicking his outer form"? Will you have all the --kyo, shihonage, koshinage, kokyunage etc... reworked to their non outer form shape? If so, how will your martial art look like when you are done?
3. In the context of the previous question, how does your Aikido look like now? How would you categorise your linage?

1) I never insisted on not doing it - Dan could give you his reasons (which are quite good, I think), and you can make up your own mind, which you have, I guess. I'm not saying that there are no times when a standard hanmi are not optimal - but I'm not sure that waiting for those times to roll around is the optimal strategy. The problem is - everything changes, it's the one thing that can be relied upon. Schooling yourself to a certain set posture is OK for studying certain things, but it will get you into trouble, IMO, in most other places.

2) How do you decide anything? You take your best guess with the information you have and take your chances. I have no idea how it will look when I'm done (if I'm ever really done).

3) Our regular training might look a little odd to you. Normal Aikido classes look more or less the same - but better (IMO)

........ I don't and neither did he and he stressed that he didn't give it importance over aiki. And just to be clear; all of his descriptions of aiki didn't involve form. In fact most of them were not even his-they came from other source material and directly pointed to solo training and what was happening inside of you!!

To add to Dan's questions one of my own.....all of these guys Dan refers to (Ueshiba, Shirata, Shioda, Mochizuki, Tomiki, and later Tohei and Saotome) how do they continue to have the abilities they exhibited at age? I don't think it was youthful speed, timing and the like. I am 70 and can still lift considerable amount of weight...I still go to the gym to keep the body working.....but I no longer turn, spin and the like as I once did.....technique isn't going to hold me over now and to continue to rely only on the outer form just won't do.....I don't think it did for these gentlemen either......

If it matters, I got my ni-dan from Saotome back in the '80's and then spent a number of years in Japan, where I trained with a number of people in a number of arts - but so far I've always come back to Yamaguchi related lineages.

To add to Dan's questions one of my own.....all of these guys Dan refers to (Ueshiba, Shirata, Shioda, Mochizuki, Tomiki, and later Tohei and Saotome) how do they continue to have the abilities they exhibited at age? I don't think it was youthful speed, timing and the like. I am 70 and can still lift considerable amount of weight...I still go to the gym to keep the body working.....but I no longer turn, spin and the like as I once did.....technique isn't going to hold me over now and to continue to rely only on the outer form just won't do.....I don't think it did for these gentlemen either......

Gary

Well, specifically regarding the Founder, check out the interview with Gaku Homa earlier in this thread. Regarding the others, and this is just a guess, they may have been taking private classes from Dan.

I don't really expect to receive any answers, but I thought it worth repeating:

_________________________________________________________
I don't consider this adversarial. Both the research and the results are compelling enough that more and more Aikido teachers are out pursuing many...I say again...many, venues that offer this type of teaching.
Lack of awareness of the pedagogy of the things being discussed is of course troubling within the discussion. The research has to take place on your part. Of course there is a vetting process that needs to be undertaken by those in doubt. I suggest it take place both academically and physically

To try an answer your questions, I will offer one last time:
Ueshiba's training models and exercises were not his
His descriptions were not his
Many/most of his sayings were edited versions of pre-existing internal training dogma
The sum total of his words on training and expression are echos of other works describing internal training. It is no coincidence that the arts containing the same terminology and sayings he was quoting and borrowing from also created what???
Budo giants with unusual strength.

Aiki and awase again
_________________________________________

The classic model was aiki as a union of opposites-BEFORE- awase. It is in my tag line from Shirata -yet another giant.
1. Place the immovable body (there is that nagging Ueshiba example again eh?)
2. Into an an invincible position (awase)
_______________________________________________

As far as understanding goes I continue to pose questions.
How did Ueshiba generate this power with a tree? By "fitting in" with the tree?
How did he stop Tenryu? By fitting in with him? He didn't do anything.
Why did he do push testing? Was that awase?
How?
What was he doing?
How did his description of Heaven/earth/man fit in with a push test?
What is Mountain echo?
Who can do it?
Why did he answer that aiki was a circle with opposing forces?
Why did the things he was saying appear from famous Swordsman after training at the Katori shrine in 1451 who also claimed..... it gave him power?
Explain his answer regarding dual opposing spirals?
Why are there hundreds of men in the ICMA who use the same terms Ueshiba used who have....wait...unusual soft power?
How did this happen?

If teachers really understand what Ueshiba was talking about, then why do THEY feel like anyone else I can pull off the street anywhere in the world. Yet, those of us you are debating continue to exhibit a growing unusual strength and soft power to one degree or another. You know, the qualities more in keeping with many of the things Ueshiba was noted for?
How is this happening over and over and the number of people doing it...are growing?
Could it possibly be because we in fact do know what we are talking about?

People are now talking lineage:
Qualifications come in many forms. The most telling being what people can actually do. Our understanding in budo, resides in our hands, not in our teachers, not in our "years-in," not in our keyboards...but in our hands.
So, if we remove waza from the equation, and someone feels very powerful and freakishly soft, compelling and controlling,
And then
Someone claims understanding they feel as normal as anyone else...what does that REALLY say about both their understanding?

What is it about an immovable body, what are the qualities required to make it a reality, that would greatly enhance...awase?
What was it that possessed Ueshiba and generations of other budo men to ...push test.
What were they seeking?

If it matters, I got my ni-dan from Saotome back in the '80's and then spent a number of years in Japan, where I trained with a number of people in a number of arts - but so far I've always come back to Yamaguchi related lineages.

"There are now two people that I can talk to. They are Yamaguchi Sensei and Saito Sensei. Their forms are completely different, but it's good study for me. They both have something I don't have. Technically, Yamaguchi uses the ken and although Saito Sensei uses the ken too, you could almost say their approaches are opposite. Saito Sensei is the only person who can hand down O-Sensei's Aikido exactly as it was."

According to this quote from Nishio, Ymaguchi was doing his own thing.

Perhaps this is why, you don't find the Founder's Aikido in yours .

David:

That is quite the assumption that you make. You might want to step back from that cliff that you are falling off of.....

Reading the research and having hands on with a number of direct students of O'Sensei (Saito Sensei being one of them), I think that the best conclusion that myself and other people can come to is that his direct students took bits and parts that seemed to resonate with them. NO ONE seemed to get the entire package. They all developed in interesting paths.

That is quite the assumption that you make. You might want to step back from that cliff that you are falling off of.....

Reading the research and having hands on with a number of direct students of O'Sensei (Saito Sensei being one of them), I think that the best conclusion that myself and other people can come to is that his direct students took bits and parts that seemed to resonate with them. NO ONE seemed to get the entire package. They all developed in interesting paths.

Marc Abrams

We live in imperfect world were things are not categorically all or nothing. However that no one got the entire package doesn't mean that all got the same sized package. As for the topographical imagery, I don't really understand it, you don't like the quote from the interview with Nishio Shoji?